Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Several readers sent word that California State Senator Leland Yee was arrested today. He's accused of conspiring to traffic guns and commit wire fraud, to defraud citizens of honest services, and bribery. The complant (PDF) also names 25 other defendants. Yee is known for pushing legislation that would ban the sale of violent video games to minors.
"Federal prosecutors also allege Yee agreed to perform official acts in exchange for the money, including one instance in which he introduced a businessman to state legislators who had significant influence over pending medical marijuana legislation. In exchange, the businessman -- who was actually an undercover FBI agent -- agreed to donate thousands to Yee's campaign fund, according to the indictment. The indictment also describes an August 2013 exchange in which [former school board president Keith Jackson] told an undercover officer that Yee had an arms trafficking contact. Jackson allegedly said Yee could facilitate a meeting for a donation."

There for a while he was pushing for a ban on a bit of a work around that 'gun-nuts' in California came up with to get around it's ban on so called 'Assault Weapons' A weird little device called a bullet button that makes it so that the magazine in a firearm can't be easier removed. Pretty clever work around for a completely asinine law.

Great, so you're not a drug addict. Congratulations. Neither am I. But I nonetheless have a serious problem with the ridiculous expenditures on police and prisons, not to mention the militarization of the police force and increasingly invasive anti-drug measures being taken around the country. All of which is a direct consequence of the asinine and completely ineffective "war on drugs". That money comes straight out of my taxes, and could be spent on so many more socially productive endeavors. And it's my rights that are being potentially trampled on when police in military assault gear march on peaceful protestors, or kick in the wrong door in the middle of the night and start shooting.

To be fair though that doesn't mean drug legalisation is the solution to the particular problem you're describing, the solution to the problem you take issue with is simply to end the war on drugs.

That doesn't have to imply legalisation, it's perfectly possible to keep drugs illegal but not militiarise the prohibition of them, that's what most countries do - America is exceptional in the extremes is goes to to police illegality.

The problem you're describing is more symptomatic of America's powerful military

Actually, it is a pretty simple matter. Legalization is going to be better overall than the current state. Moderate regulation may also be more beneficial, and would certainly be better than the status quo. Finding the ideal laws is no simple matter, but having better laws is a piece of cake.

And you really are downplaying the role the war on drugs has played on the militarization of police forces and the curtailing of our rights. Civil forfeiture is more or less due to prohibition (and the organized

One could extrapolate the results from places that have legalized, and society hasn't collapsed, or pretty much any place where they don't have the highest per capita prison population (with many inmates in for nonviolent drug offences), with associated after prison stigmata. As things are going at the moment, drug trafficking is often done by the most violent, least moral elements, as they are the ones willing to take the risks (including dealing with rival killer gangs), take the money out of that market,

"Finding the ideal laws is no simple matter, but having better laws is a piece of cake."

If you don't get the balance of regulation right and you end up with taxes on drugs to pay for some of the likely increase in health problems meaning the cost is high enough that poorer people can't afford them and stick with maintaining a black market anyway, whilst rich kids go and get off their heads and kill themselves and others in their parents cars more frequently in drug driving incidents then you've clearly fuck

"America's powerful military industrial complex being out of control "I disagree. I think it has far more to do with the privatization of prisons.Some drugs should no longer be prohibited, such as Marijuana, and some should remain.

Stop incarcerating people who don't do violence, and focus on social programs.

I do agree that our prison system needs a serious rebuild such that those who serve time come out of prison more fit to live a decent life. Although the nation's economic condition now makes that sort of impossible. How can a released convict get a decent job when many much more perfect candidates can find no decent work at all?
As far as dope is concerned we made the same mistake with alcohol. Going after the business side of dope can't work. There has to be a willingness to go to war on th

The use of police for political oppression has been with us for a long time, but the upgrade to military hardware has largely been in response to increasingly well-armed gangs - nobody is going to come out and authorize military upgrades to put down protestors. And the gang militarization is an utterly predictable outcome of prohibition.

>This is exactly what is happening.Can you offer an example where police forces received military upgrades for the stated purpose of assaulting protestors?

Note that I'm not saying the hardware isn't *used* against the protestors. Hell, that may well have even been the actual long-term intent - gotta be able to keep the rabble in line as the fist closes after all. But very few politicians would put their name on a funds allocation based on that rationale. But fighting violent gangs in the manufactured

Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary? Not all of us are drug addicts, and it's tiresome when people like yourself have to bring up drug issues in nearly every thread. I know it's important to you, but normal people don't care about such matters.

You don't have to give a damn about drugs, pro or con, to admit that they are a useful example to bring up in the context of the effect of prohibition on the available margins in a given market.

If you prefer a classier example, from a (not actually more civilized; but definitely better dressed) age; we can talk about booze. Same effects were seen under the Volstead act.

I gotta agree with the furry fungus here - this legislator was spending his career expanding the prohibition of guns while allegedly being involved in the black market for guns.

Drug and alcohol prohibition and the black markets they create are directly applicable examples for this discussion. Although it is admittedly pretty rare for the perverse incentives to be as directly applied as they are in this case. Usually it just involves interested parties like police and prison unions and private prisons lobb

Well if the cops just happen to get the wild idea that you might have some illegal drugs on you, you may find yourself in a hospital getting fucked up the ass by all sorts of medical apparatus, with no option to decline. Like this:
http://www.policestateusa.com/... [policestateusa.com]

This is the monster we have created, and now have to live with. And it's starting to eat us. And you are not exempt from having one of these "mistakes" happen to you.

Sure, once it's at least partly legalized in a sensible way for most areas of the world. Else the issue won't go away.

normal people don't care about such matters.

I imagine they would start caring, if say their house or car were seized as part of a US drug raid. You don't have to care in order to get bit by the bizarre and rather nasty laws that have come about in order to fight the War on Drugs.

Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary? Not all of us are drug addicts, and it's tiresome when people like yourself have to bring up drug issues in nearly every thread. I know it's important to you, but normal people don't care about such matters.

If normal people realy don't care about such matters why are the drugs banned? Stop the ban on production and consumption of drugs and i'm sure the "drug addicts" will stop bothering you about it. If you realy don't care about it it should be no problem for you.

[Parent poster talks of ONE of his many anti-gun (i.e. anti-gun-in-private-hands) projects.]

Prohibition of something means the illegal providers of it have less competition and can thus sell for a higher price. So it's very convenient for those sellers. Thus, for instance, drug lords are just fine with keeping the drug laws strong and complex, and opposed to legalization of their product (which would put them in competition with efficient conglomerates who could compete the pants off them).

(Incidentially: I suspect Yee's opposition to video games was a spinoff of his antigun agenda.)

By the way: Pro-gunners are celebrating tonight. (The call from a friend a few hours ago with the news made both my wife my own day. B-) )

But then why is he anti-violence in games? Surely if he is trying to ban guns to increase his profits, why isn't he lobbying for violent games so people are more interested in buying his product? Is it possible that deep down he knows that violent games don't lead to an increase in real-world violence?

“My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of this horrific tragedy and their families. These events are shocking to all of us and sadly remind us of the carnage that is possible when assault weapons get into the wrong hands. It is imperative that we take every step possible to eliminate the types of senseless killings witnessed in Aurora, Colorado. We must limit access to weapons that can carry massive rounds of bullets or that can be easily reloaded. SB 249 is a step in that direction and should

Don't forget he also wanted to licence 3d printers during the 3d-printed gun hysteria.

"While I am as impressed as anyone with 3-D printing technology and I believe it has amazing possibilities, we must ensure that it is not used for the wrong purpose with potentially deadly consequences," said Yee [ca.gov]. "I plan to introduce legislation that will ensure public safety and stop the manufacturing of guns that are invisible to metal detectors and that can be easily made without a background check.".

Most people's first thought when a politician does something they disagree with: "Isn't this just typical of $political_party? Always doing $stereotypical_action."

Between confirmation bias, the No True Scotsman fallacy, and the polarizing messages coming from the American political camps that are reshaping nearly every American's world views, the everyday Joe has an inordinate number of tools at his disposal to think exactly what I said above. They'll forget the good while making a point of remembering every wrong done by the other side, dismiss every wrong done by their own as someone who never really belonged, have those ideas reinforced by their preferred "news" sources, and get sucked into unproductive back-and-forth "debates" with the other side that only serve to divert attention and keep us from working together.

I'm a Republican (or at least that's what the card says), and I have no idea what party this politician happens to be, nor do I care. I'd encourage you to stop making it a source of division. Because even if the media favors one side or the other, what I care about is that he's doing something reprehensible and sounds like he deserves some serious jail time. Anyone on either side of the aisle engaged in the same is also a scumbag that deserves jail time. Neither side supports the sort of thing he's doing, so blaming it on either party makes no sense, and focusing on his party does nothing to address the issue.

I'm a Republican (or at least that's what the card says), and I have no idea what party this politician happens to be, nor do I care.

I myself am a Libertarian, and I DO care. I care very much that the press tries to harm as much as possible one major party and tarnish every member with the brush of a few lunatics, while shielding the Democrats as much as possible from any negative behavior by members and making sure that each and any infraction is isolated from any and every other Democrat.

As an European, I find it hilarious that you bicker about what edge of The Party someone came from instead of realizing that it just doesn't matter what letter is next to someone's name.

It's absolutely amazing to watch that fight. It's like watching two religious nuts fighting over who has the cooler imaginary friend, not realizing that they're both being bullshitted by the system behind it.

First off: That's a horrible attempt at a rhyme.Secondly, I can find all kinds of article where the pub isn't called out as well.You should probably read up on observational bias.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... [wikipedia.org]

Let's see... the summary above doesn't mention party affiliation, and neither does the LA Times article it links to. How many other newspapers did you have to look at to find one where the affiliation is mentioned near the top? How many articles did you find where a Republican was accused of something negative but the affiliation wasn't mentioned?

Just because someone points out evidence for their case doesn't automatically mean they're engaging in confirmation bias. Finding one contrary piece of evidence

Try again. The summary says nothing about party affiliation. The linked article in the LA Times says nothing about party affiliation. I looked at the top seven articles from a google search on "senator yee", and none mention his affiliation in the headline, while only three mention it within the first two paragraphs. Three others mention it near the bottom of the article (interestingly, all in the form of a transition sentence like "Yee's arrest would make him the third Democratic state senator fighting charges this year", leading into a discussion of other Democrats in trouble), and one (from CBS, not the LA Times one again) doesn't mention it at all.

Show me a similar sampling of articles on a Republican corruption case where the party affiliation is not mentioned at or near the top of the article in anything approaching half the examples, and then we can talk.

Again, you throw around the term "lie" pretty loosely. Ahem indeed. [wikipedia.org]

Again, you throw around the term "lie" pretty loosely. [Psychological projection link]

Indeed. The Democrats do fall into psychological projection quite easily, and in fact this Yee guy is a case study. He pushed for heavy gun regulations precisely because he was right in the middle of easy gun trafficking. After all, if he is right in the middle of it, so must everyone else.. and something must be done if everyone has such easy access to gun traffickers.

Republicans arent saints, but this projection syndrome isnt one of their flaws. Its all Democrats, When a Democrat politician calls their opponent something negative, its fairly likely that the Democrat making the claim is a closer fit to that negative than anybody opposed to him.

"Racist!" Said by someone who pander to people based on the color of their skin. Isnt that pretty racist? So why they calling other folks racist? Projection.
"Greedy!" Said by someone that demands that certain folk give more money to bloated government budgets. Isnt that pretty greedy? So why they calling other folk greedy? Projection.....

Republicans arent saints, but this projection syndrome isnt one of their flaws.

Hahaha, holy shit, you can't possibly be that blind. Rush Limbaugh himself is an addict that rails against drug users. And how many homophobic Republicans have been caught in gay sex scandals? How many complain about wasteful spending, while throwing away trillions on pointless wars?

Yet somehow you didn't think of any of that. They really have got you, haven't they? It's amazing what a steady diet of propaganda can do to a man.

Artor3 has you there. I was going to post along the same lines, but I think that pretty much covers it. Everyone is susceptible to confirmation bias and a myriad of other logical fallacies that support our personal world view. If you think you are exempt, that's just because your own biases are particularly strong.

He should have the good grace to shut up about it though. He's not required to tolerate em, but he is required to stop calling them degenerates, and casting aspersions on their characters, considering that the exact same thing happened to him (most people don't set out to become addicts, and it often isn't a failing of willpower, or some moral fault).. and all of a sudden it's a sob story.

" because he was right in the middle of easy gun trafficking. "a) we don't know that. We will see what unfolds.b) No, he submitted some bills because it would get him votes. You don't need to be a representative in order to do gun smuggling.

I looked at the top seven articles from a google search on "senator yee"

Let's go into detail on that then. Ignoring the Wikipedia page, we have:

#1: Fox News - Waits all the way till sentence 18 to identify him as a Democrat. Are you prepared to argue that Fox is biased in favor of Democrats?#2: CBS - No mention. That's one.#3: ABC - Mentioned in the first sentence.#4: NBC - Mentioned, but several paragraphs down.#5: Mercury News: Mentioned in the first sentence.#6: Mentioned in the second sentence.#7: Mentioned in the 13th sentence.

So it's only omitted once, and only really buried one other time. In every other case, you need to read 20 or fewer sentences. And the third "worst" is Fox News, who you can't possibly claim to be biased against Republicans. Do you really believe there's malice there? And not just reporters figuring that his affiliation doesn't have anything to do with his crime?

I can't pull up a Republican, because I don't know of any who have recently been arrested. And if I Google "Republican arrested", I'm obviously going to get articles mentioning party affiliation. That's the brilliant thing about this lie that right-wing media outlets have been pushing. It won't be on your mind next time a Republican gets arrested, so you won't look for it. But whenever a Democrat gets arrested, you'll have some more fuel for your hatred.

You'd have to Google "Republican arrested," find an incident, and then Google the name in a separate search (preferably in a private browsing session). I'd do it, but I can't find the energy to try to convince someone they're not being persecuted.

" the odds are very high that the person is a Democrat"and thats false.

What is happening is different organization report different stories differently and everyone is trying to find some sort of pattern.You might as well look for clues to the next terrorist attack in a Moby DIck book.

" the odds are very high that the person is a Democrat"and thats false.

How is that false? We have two examples right here (the LA Times article and the CBS article), and at this point, no counterexamples. I already explained how to find more examples via google. I'm not saying that proves it's true, but at least I have evidence. You're just making a totally unjustified assertion.

If it was an (R), his party affiliation would be mentioned in the headline, not the body of the story.

And honestly, there is a lot of hatred towards white Christian men. You really don't see it? It's like the entire left wing decided that the problem wasn't bigotry, it was that bigotry was being directed at the wrong group. I know you don't believe me, so here's some science:

A lack of political diversity in psychology is said to lead to a number of pernicious outcomes, including biased research and active discrimination against conservatives. The authors of this study surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts. First, although only 6% described themselves as conservative âoeoverall,â there was more diversity of political opinion on economic issues and foreign policy. Second, respondents significantly underestimated the proportion of conservatives among their colleagues. Third, conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. Finally, they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate.

Composite scores of perceived hostile climate for conservatives (! =.85) were significantly correlated with political orientation, r(263) =.28, p
At the end of our surveys, we gave room for comments. Many respondents wrote that they could not believe that anyone in the field would ever deliberately discriminate against conservatives. Yet at the same time we found clear examples of discrimination. One participant described how a colleague was denied tenure because of his political beliefs. Another wrote that if the department "could figure out who was a conservative they would be sure not to
hire them."

Since NPR has taken a really through look at it, I got to say you are wrong.IN fact, they are the only news organization I can find that's asking hard questions about it, to representatives regardless of the part affiliation.NPR reporting is some of the most actually balanced reporting.

I am a white Christian man, and no, I don't see any significant hatred towards me. A few obnoxious atheists who are either passing through, or never grew out of, the I've-got-it-all-figured-out phase, but that's really about it. And even those are pretty much only on the internet.

Also, your copy-pasted science is talking about discriminating against people based on their political stance, not because they are white or Christian or male. If someone starts ranting about how Obama is gonna set up death pane

So thats a study that says that psychologists discriminate against colleagues with conservative views. I dont understand how that translates into "hatred against white Christian men". Seems they just dont like collegues with a political view that supports creationism over evolution in schools, ignorance of climate change research, and a general anti-science bent in their policies. Sounds like scientists being rational actors.

But how much of that has anything to do with them being white, or christian, or men?

Given that this group has historically been -- and to considerable extent still is -- disproportionately represented in positions of power, it is hardly surprising that those who are underrepresented or feel disenfranchised would develop some animosity. But I would guess this has much more to do with the factual inbalances than traits such as skin color, or religion, or gender.

There's a reason for the bile thrown at white Christian males. They deserve it.

Sorry if that sounds like troll bait, but I don't remember any other group lynching African-Americans. While also denying women health choices or voting rights, or screaming for border security to keep out people who are "not like us". Or complaining about the "culture war" (which is in reality an indicator of declining influence). Or recently, trying to get Draconian voter ID laws on the books.

The authors of this study surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts

Oh me oh my! Out of 800 members of the soft sciences, there were some anti-conservative sentiments?!? SAY IT AIN'T SO!!! (/s)

First off, that's not "hatred towards white Christian men" which is what you seemed to be trying to prove. Second, plenty of fields have biases. Go into a chamber of commerce in Arizona and take such a poll and I'm sure you'll find much more vivid hatred against liberals. And latinos. And I'd suggest that the chamber of commerce crowd weilds a lot more power than a bunch of

I'll do an experiment. I'll pick a Republican state senatorwho was in trouble. Jason Priest of Montana is a good one. I'll Google for "Jason Priest arrested" and pick the first four mainstream news links.

But the press trumpets party when a Republican, and hides or omits it when Democrat.

There's really not much difference between the parties. The reason to vote Republican is that the press pays FAR more attention to Republican corruption, and sweeps Democrat-branded corruption under the run as long as possible. The Democrat in this story would not have been able to run a gun-smuggling operation for nearly so long had he been a Republican, he would have had the press sniffing all around him much earlier.

It's a factual rule of thumb. If you wander back though all of the media in the last decade, or even the last 20 years you'll quickly see that if it's any democrat related scandal/gaffe/offending comment/etc it in the vast majority of cases from municipal all the way up to the senate, that they won't list that they belong to the democrat party. However, if it's a republican/tea partier/libertarian/etc, you can bet that it'll be listed, and that the media will be hot on the heels to dig up anything else th

Politicians like to keep pointing fingers at other people at being the bad guys so less people points fingers at them.

As long as the law says it is legal to bribe politicians with campaign contributions, the only way someone will get in a significant office is if they're willing to take bribes. The system is designed to get crooks in office and keep honest folk out. Mandatory corruption is generally unsustainable in the long run.

In California, if there's a scandal, it's likely to be a Democrat, just based on the statistics. There are far more Democrats than Republicans in office. Furthermore, if you're in San Francisco, you're going to have a Democrat in office. It's the way the city votes. It's your job to pick a good one.

Replace marijuana with alcohol and you could have made exactly the same argument during prohibition.

I'm mildly allergic to marijuana (its only effect on my brain is to make it hurt, a lot), so I have no personal stake in legalisation. But I do want to see people who smoke it taxed at the same rate that I am when I buy a beer.

What is not clear is if there was an actual arms deal being done or the feds were leading him down a path. It wouldn't be a reasonable thing to ask except that this is in keeping with a pattern the FBI is known for. For example a local (to me) case was Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who engaged in a spot of attempted mass murder, but it transpired that he was led down that path by the FBI and only the FBI. They providing the schooling, the materials and the motivation. Left alone he probably would not have

Can you imagine a scenario where an FBI informant would be able to lead a principled gun control advocate down the path of importing machine guns and rocket launchers? Can you imagine a scenario where a clean politician is even associating with the head of the SF Chinese mafia?

" Can you imagine a scenario where a clean politician is even associating with the head of the SF Chinese mafia?"yes.Does this person give donation to charities? are they also perusing legal action in the city?

Just becasue he is head of a mafia doesn't mean he doesn't get the same rights or representation as anyone else.

I can think of a scenario were a Chinese mafia leader would want to set up a representative.

I don't know if any of that's true, just speculation.I suggest the same thing I always do: Calm do

If someone takes money in exchange for doing something illegal, he is a criminal. Whether he delivers or whether he just promises to do it does not matter. When you take money for the promise to deliver dope, you're going to do time. Ask your local police department, it works for them quite well.

Don't dismiss this too soon. As an anti-violence in games person, he must have done lots of thorough investigation into exactly what kind of violence is actually in games. So it's actually quite possible he was influenced by all the violence and crime he's seen depicted in these games and as this has lead to him pursuing it in the real world.